3 ms·
> It's surprising that this is allowed in the US at all. I’m curious - why do you find this surprising? > For a country that values personal freedoms, the leg
by haswell 5y ago
> It's surprising that this is allowed in the US at all.
I’m curious - why do you find this surprising?
> For a country that values personal freedoms, the legalization of being photographed against one's will is unexpected.
And what of the personal freedoms of the person holding the camera?
To make this more complex, what if that person is holding an iPhone, and the subject of their photo is their kid? And what if you happen to be in that shot?
While I completely understand the spirit of your concern, it shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with US freedoms.
- ppeetteerr 5y agoIf a photo of someone's kid includes a recognizable photo of me, and the photo is for private use then it's a different matter than someone exhibiting that photo for public use. As for general freedoms, a person's freedom ends when it infringes on the freedoms of another. We can debate the nuance of that sentiment (that's what courts are for) but the freedom of anyone to privacy should exceed the freedom of some to make money.
- haswell 5y agoThe point though is that the current state of things is neither surprising nor unexpected, which is what you were originally saying. There is a spectrum of use between "private display" and "purely for commercial benefit" that is nearly impossible to legislate effectively. The acceptable use of photography equipment and fair use of the resulting photos can't be boiled down to privacy vs. profit, and that's why this particular subject is so controversial and difficult to resolve.
- SirHound 5y agoOr art, or historical record, apparently.